CCPR/C/125/D/2494/2014 risk factors that the Board failed to take properly into account. Against this background, the return of the author to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not constitute a violation of article 6 or 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he suffered discrimination as an asylum seeker because the decisions of the Danish Refugee Appeals Board are the only decisions that become final without the possibility of being appealed against in the courts and that the State party has thus violated articles 2, 13, 14 and 26 of the Covenant. In that regard, the Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14, but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant. 22 Article 13 of the Covenant offers some of the protection afforded under article 14, but does not itself protect the right of appeal to judicial courts. 23 The Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.24 7.5 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that the Board decision not to reopen proceedings is in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (paras. 5.2 and 5.3) because the decision was adopted by the Chair of the panel that considered the appeal, who is a member of the secretariat, and without hearing the author. However, the Committee considers that the author has failed to justify how this in itself affected his rights under the relevant provisions. The Committee therefore considers that this claim is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 Finally, the Committee notes the State party’s challenge to admissibility on the grounds that the author’s claim under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant based on an alleged risk for his life and integrity is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that for the purposes of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that his forcible return to the Islamic Republic of Iran would result in a risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant based on his conversion to Christianity. The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 and 7 and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 22 23 24 See P.K. v. Canada (CCPR/C/89/D/1234/2003), paras. 7.4 and 7.5. See Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013), para. 6.4, and the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62. See K.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/123/D/2423/2014), para. 7.5. 9